Are christians persecuted? Honestly yes they're ridiculed for their beliefs, yelled at for showing up at your door to witness, told that their beliefs are outdated.... etc. That is mostly what you face in america....
The first one is a form of persecution, the second might be or might just be justified anger on the part of a busy the homeowner who was rudely interrupted (and may have been repeatedly interrupted in the past), but the third is definitely not persecution by any stretch of the imagination. If I tell a conservative that his political beliefs are out of date, is that persecution? If a vegan tells me that I'm an animal holocaust denier and ought to stop eating meat, is that persecution? If a Republican tells a Democrat that his policies are turning the United States into a socialist tyranny, is that persecution? No, no and no! All three are called "open debate" and "expressing ones opinion." Yet when it comes criticism of their religion, religious believers often get all prickly, and yell "persecution" when confronted with challenges to their beliefs or world view that would be considered normal debate in any other context. And indeed that is all it is, normal debate.
*Comes in wearing a chicken suit* YAP! Er...I mean... BAAK!
Are you feeling this too?
Yet when it comes criticism of their religion, religious believers often get all prickly, and yell "persecution" when confronted with challenges to their beliefs or world view that would be considered normal debate in any other context. And indeed that is all it is, normal debate.
I believe you've hit the nail on the head there -- but strictly speaking there's precedent for it. In the same way churches are tax-exempt, so all views that are claimed to be "religious" seem to popularly be argument-exempt. Potentially offensive example; think hard before clicking:
|
Yet when it comes criticism of their religion, religious believers often get all prickly, and yell "persecution" when confronted with challenges to their beliefs or world view that would be considered normal debate in any other context. And indeed that is all it is, normal debate.I believe you've hit the nail on the head there -- but strictly speaking there's precedent for it. In the same way churches are tax-exempt, so all views that are claimed to be "religious" seem to popularly be argument-exempt. Potentially offensive example; think hard before clicking:
** spoiler omitted **This is even worse. Do NOT click this if you think I was being "oppressive" before:
** spoiler omitted **
Kirth,
Regarding the first spoiler, I've actually seen more insane things said such as:
I've actually seen more insane things said such as: ** spoiler omitted **
Heh. I saw the Virgin Mary in a bowl of cornflakes. Heh.
First off when you were naked on the other persons lawn were you looking in their windows casue that just might be the problem.It's not that he was naked, it's what he was doing to himself while naked. That poor chicken.... O_oThe only reason I'm a vegetarian is because I can't kill what I love.
And love... and love... and love...
::cues funk bass::
That's right make it squawk for ya!
Kirth,
Regarding the first spoiler, I've actually seen more insane things said such as:
** spoiler omitted **
In England? But, but, you have the history of the York Minster and everything. What a sad example of purging beautiful work/history. Loved that tour in '99, despite the sad history.
|
|
In England? But, but, you have the history of the York Minster and everything. What a sad example of purging beautiful work/history. Loved that tour in '99, despite the sad history.
Kirth,
Regarding the first spoiler, I've actually seen more insane things said such as:
** spoiler omitted **
Not directly in England. These were on internet forums populated by an extreme breed of religious. I haven't ecountered that level of mind-numbing stupidity in real life yet.
Not directly in England. These were on internet forums populated by an extreme breed of religious. I hanve't ecountered that levle of mind-numbing stupidity in real life yet.In England? But, but, you have the history of the York Minster and everything. What a sad example of purging beautiful work/history. Loved that tour in '99, despite the sad history.
Kirth,
Regarding the first spoiler, I've actually seen more insane things said such as:
** spoiler omitted **
Stupidity on the internet? Say it ain't so. :)
|
|
Stupidity on the internet? Say it ain't so. :)Not directly in England. These were on internet forums populated by an extreme breed of religious. I hanve't ecountered that levle of mind-numbing stupidity in real life yet.In England? But, but, you have the history of the York Minster and everything. What a sad example of purging beautiful work/history. Loved that tour in '99, despite the sad history.
Kirth,
Regarding the first spoiler, I've actually seen more insane things said such as:
** spoiler omitted **
I know. Shocking and surprising, isn't it? And apparently, the Pope's Catholic too.
That's right make it squawk for ya!
I so want to make a song out of this. Funk bass line and a chicken under rhythmic duress.
Clucka chuang. Clucka chuang. Chuang chuang clucka chuang.
<does some moves, rhythm guitar riff>
YAH BABY
That's right make it squawk for ya!
I so want to make a song out of this. Funk bass line and a chicken under rhythmic duress.
You should hire these guys for the band - for that slightly hillbilly feel.
Not directly in England. These were on internet forums populated by an extreme breed of religious. I haven't ecountered that level of mind-numbing stupidity in real life yet.
I've heard that kind of crazy in person as well as on the internet. Plenty of wink-wink, nudge-nudge antisemitism too.
animal holocaust denier
Technical point!
When you do, I so want to hear it.That's right make it squawk for ya!
I so want to make a song out of this. Funk bass line and a chicken under rhythmic duress.
Clucka chuang. Clucka chuang. Chuang chuang clucka chuang.
<does some moves, rhythm guitar riff>
YAH BABY
You should hire these guys for the band - for that slightly hillbilly feel.
I think I just found my back-up band.
Spray can pancake.
That looks closer to an old crone looking around to see if anyone is noticing her shoplifting then the virgin Mary (as described by popular media).
Virgin or young woman?
Ugh, had a group of those Phelps bastards show up in town on Friday. Well, I’m not sure it was them, but they were yelling at a street corner with ‘God hates fags’ and ‘God hates Mardi Gras’ signs. So if not them they followed the MO at least. These guys piss me off enough normally, but this time they were slowing down traffic to a crawl and they made me an hour late to my pathfinder game.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Ugh, had a group of those Phelps bastards show up in town on Friday. Well, I’m not sure it was them, but they were yelling at a street corner with ‘God hates f~@s’ and ‘God hates Mardi Gras’ signs. So if not them they followed the MO at least. These guys piss me off enough normally, but this time they were slowing down traffic to a crawl and they made me an hour late to my pathfinder game.
Speaking as a Christian and a soldier, I'd love to have a fistfight with those guys. God hates f__s so he makes IEDs? That dog, as we say, don't hunt.
EDIT: Admittedly, it wouldn't really be in keeping with my religion to have that fistfight. I'm not very good at the practice of it (religion, not fistfighting).
What does god have against Mardi Gras?
What does god have against Mardi Gras?
I think there’s a line in Leviticus about bird masks…
EDIT: Admittedly, it wouldn't really be in keeping with my religion to have that fistfight.
Unless Jesus had a different meaning.
"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s" Matthew 22:21
If say…Caesar = hypocritical nut jobs and whoopin' = things which are Caesar's
I think there’s a line in Leviticus about bird masks…
And here I thought the NFL was the No Fun League.
Bella Sara Charter Superscriber
|
Ugh, had a group of those Phelps bastards show up in town on Friday. Well, I’m not sure it was them, but they were yelling at a street corner with ‘God hates f!#s’ and ‘God hates Mardi Gras’ signs. So if not them they followed the MO at least. These guys piss me off enough normally, but this time they were slowing down traffic to a crawl and they made me an hour late to my pathfinder game.
Did you throw beads at them? Maybe that's all they really wanted.
|
Ugh, had a group of those Phelps bastards show up in town on Friday. Well, I’m not sure it was them, but they were yelling at a street corner with ‘God hates f!#s’ and ‘God hates Mardi Gras’ signs. So if not them they followed the MO at least. These guys piss me off enough normally, but this time they were slowing down traffic to a crawl and they made me an hour late to my pathfinder game.Did you throw beads at them? Maybe that's all they really wanted.
Or maybe they wanted him to show them his tits. It's all part of the fun, after all.
Ugh, had a group of those Phelps bastards show up in town on Friday. Well, I’m not sure it was them, but they were yelling at a street corner with ‘God hates f!#s’ and ‘God hates Mardi Gras’ signs. So if not them they followed the MO at least. These guys piss me off enough normally, but this time they were slowing down traffic to a crawl and they made me an hour late to my pathfinder game.Did you throw beads at them? Maybe that's all they really wanted.
No, but I really wish someone else was driving so I could have spit on them. That's kinda like beads, right?
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
EDIT: Admittedly, it wouldn't really be in keeping with my religion to have that fistfight.Unless Jesus had a different meaning.
"Render unto Caesar the things which are Caesar’s, and unto God the things that are God’s" Matthew 22:21
If say…Caesar = hypocritical nut jobs and whoopin' = things which are Caesar's
Well, as a soldier, it is my function in society to hand out the righteous whoopin's. But I don't get to decide who gets them. I have to be unleashed by lawful authority. Romans 13:3-4 is the idea.
Well, as a soldier, it is my function in society to hand out the righteous whoopin's. But I don't get to decide who gets them. I have to be unleashed by lawful authority. Romans 13:3-4 is the idea.
Interesting. So are the founding fathers screwed?
"1Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves." Romans 13:1-2
Nothing against you, Charlie, but I am glad our soldiers must be 'unleashed' by a lawful authority. I was once a soldier myself. That should be enough to give everyone pause.
A humpin' for all!
Some more from Romans.
"14 Bless those who persecute you; bless and do not curse." -Romans 12:14
Things that make you go, "Hmmmm."
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Interesting. So are the founding fathers screwed?
Well, the loyalists thought so. The founding fathers considered themselves a lawful authority and wrote the Declaration of Independence to address that very question precisely because they considered lawful authority so important.
I, too, am glad that in America we have civilian control of the military. In places where that's not the case, civilians tend to have it rough. The military is very good at what it does--the controlled exercise of violence. But when all you have is a hammer, everything starts looking like a nail; and violence isn't the solution to every problem.
|
I'm busy for a weekend and there are something like 90 posts on this thread. Don't you people have lives?
This comment goes back a couple of pages to the Genesis 1:30 passage suggesting that all animals ate plants before the fall. I was first introduced to this passage quite a while ago and was kind of surprised that people use this to try and justify a "young earth". There is even quite a bit of discussion on teeth and suggesting that canines don't necessarily imply that these creatures ate meat. Really? So you believe that cheetahs have claws and teeth and can run 60 miles an hour to catch those elusive ... bushes?
I've mentioned the website Answers in Creation that seems to do a fairly decent job diferentiating between science and the Bible. Specifically, here is a decent article on the passage in question above.
At its simplest, it could simply mean that he gave creatures plants. If you want to eat meat, you have to work for it.
Regardless, it feels that many try and fill in holes in scripture with their own interpretations.
|
|
Some more from Romans...
Be careful with quoting from Romans. Romans is full of odd random verses that, if taken out of context, can imply something far from the intended meaning. There is a lot in Romans. Some of it is Paul being sarcastic. Some of it is him being dead serious. Some of it I still don't fully understand what he was trying to get at.
With regard to the direct verse with "authority" -- I thought that it was interesting as well. Paul was probably talking specifically about the Roman authority at the time, but he didn't specify either. He could have also meant that it didn't matter who was in "authority" at the time -- that they were/are there because it was/is part of God's design.
Definitely mixed feelings on that one.
Well, I'm not sure if I'm blessing you enough, but I am certainly blessed by you.
I would like to think I am a better person for having met you here, Moff. You have given me a new perspective.
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Some more from Romans...Be careful with quoting from Romans. Romans is full of odd random verses that, if taken out of context, can imply something far from the intended meaning. There is a lot in Romans. Some of it is Paul being sarcastic. Some of it is him being dead serious. Some of it I still don't fully understand what he was trying to get at.
With regard to the direct verse with "authority" -- I thought that it was interesting as well. Paul was probably talking specifically about the Roman authority at the time, but he didn't specify either. He could have also meant that it didn't matter who was in "authority" at the time -- that they were/are there because it was/is part of God's design.
Definitely mixed feelings on that one.
I think the point of that particular passage in Romans is that Paul was elaborating on Jesus's "render unto Caesar" idea. Christianity was meant to be a spiritual kingdom, not a replacement for earthly political systems. Remember also that Paul himself spent a lot of time in prison for having flouted Roman authorities.
EDIT: clarification.
I've mentioned the website Answers in Creation that seems to do a fairly decent job diferentiating between science and the Bible.
By citing that site, are you oppressing other Christians? Just wondering ;)
Be careful with quoting from Romans. Romans is full of odd random verses that, if taken out of context, can imply something far from the intended meaning.
So, pretty much like the rest of the Bible.
I could agree with you, Moff, that Paul was referring to the Romans until…
"… for there is no authority except that which God has established."
I seriously doubt Paul would suggest that future authority could exist that had not been established by god.
"For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong."
This also seems to imply any ruler anywhere. Which, to me, seems an absurd claim.
"Give everyone what you owe him: If you owe taxes, pay taxes; if revenue, then revenue; if respect, then respect; if honor, then honor."
Again, seems pretty clear to me Paul was speaking in generalities. Of course, a few lines later, Paul is telling us the end is nigh, so I question he had any idea what he was talking about.
|
|
Be careful with quoting from Romans. Romans is full of odd random verses that, if taken out of context, can imply something far from the intended meaning.So, pretty much like the rest of the Bible.
No. But from your point, I guess -- more so.
It's written more like a debate or a ... paper that I'm having difficulty coming up with the word for.
Most of the other disciples were "for the Jews". They seemed to spend a lot of time trying to convince the Jews that Jesus was the Christ. Paul on the other hand was "for the Gentiles" and spent a lot of time trying to convince the Jews that Gentiles had the right of it as much as the Jews did.
To that end Paul seemed to spend a fair amount of time pointing out how the Jews were misinterpreting the Law. Romans even moreso. And there are a number of points that he tries to drive home by pointing out how insane some of their Law progressed to. For example, Romans 6:1 says "What shall we say, then? Shall we go on sinning so that grace may increase?" If taken as this only, it might sound like Paul is suggesting that Christians should sin as much as possible to get as much grace as possible. He's actually saying nothing of the sort -- quite the opposite in fact -- but quoting just one verse out of the entire context makes it difficult to figure out what the point really is.
By citing that site, are you oppressing other Christians? Just wondering ;)Probably. Some things can't be avoided.
Ha ha! Moff is the reason Christians can't have nice things!
No.Be careful with quoting from Romans. Romans is full of odd random verses that, if taken out of context, can imply something far from the intended meaning.So, pretty much like the rest of the Bible.
Really? How many times have you said the Bible is not a science book? What about when Samnell brings up murder in the bible? Maybe I am not remembering correctly, but I could have sworn you said he was taking things out of context.
In fact, it almost seems as if only a select elite is qualified to correctly translate the meanings of the Bible.
|
|
I could agree with you, Moff, that Paul was referring to the Romans until…
You've got some good points. I wasn't around during the time of Roman rule. They didn't have the internet. They had no idea what kind of rule was happening in China, or the Americas, or South Africa, etc. While he was speaking in generalities, anyone that would have read this at the time would not have been thinking of possible futures but of the present. It doesn't invalidate what was said and can probably be used today for any "authority". Also, suggesting universal meaning when it isn't explicitly said could lead to problems. If an American says "the government is there because it is ordained by God"*, do you think that they would be talking about the American Government at the time or do you think it would be all inclusive -- including a number that I won't mention?
All I'm trying to say is that Paul was talking to the Jews about the Jewish Law. And I believe that he was using and talking about things that they understood at the time. His overall point was really in reference to how the Jews viewed authority -- especially at that time.
…but do you see the can of worms you open there? If Paul is speaking only about Rome to early Christians, then his message does not really apply to me at all. If this part of Paul's message has to be taken in context, then all of Paul's message has to be taken in context.